Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/24/2005 11:58:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

I am,  though, very surprised by your comment re Canon glass.  I only  have
two Canon lenses: the 28-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L.   Admittedly the
Canon glass I have is one generation old - the first  replaced by the 24-70
f2.8L and the second by an IS version - but neither  of these comes close to
my Contax Zeiss 80mm planar or 120  Makro-Planar.

I have used the Phase One backs (up to the P25) in a  studio, handheld, with
the Contax 645/80 Planar. They beat the 1ds2 for  sharpness and detail any
day.
 
I am even more surprised by the double standard in your comparison.  You are 
comparing old zooms to fixed focal lenghts. Even the new zooms woudn't  hold 
up to the Contax Planars. You can't compare zooms to fixed lenses and call  it 
fair.
 
Let's try a $1,600 L series 85mm f/1.2  at f/4 vs. the 120 Planar  at f/8 
which for the format differential would be about the same DOF. All Canon  has to 
do is make a chip that would "use up" that extra resolution and MTF and  put 
the 50mm f/1.4 Canon (non-L) against the 80 Planar. Since the lens  formulas 
are similar in all cases the smaller image circles of the canons would  make 
them at least 25-50% sharper, all other things being equal in optical  
design.....all for 1/2 to 1/4 the price depending on which repsective lenses you  
compare.
 
Also, the P25 doesn't use an Anti Aliasing filter, which give it a  sharpness 
advantage and a moire/color aliasing disadvantage. I shot the original  Phase 
One lightphase against the Foveon in 1999, and the Foveon equaled the  Phase 
One sharpness (after USM), had better color, no moire and no aliasing. I  know 
the P-25 is one of the top dogs out there and in the right application, for  
the right client, it's the better choice.
 
My point was about 80% of the performance for 1/3 the system price with a  
whole lot more choices in glass than a few single focal lengths from a defunct  
camera company.
 
A few years back, I tested the full frame Contax N Digital camera with the  
superb 85mm f/1.4 Planar which is every bit the lens the the Canon L is. It was 
 too few pixels, and 2 years too late to market. Nice try, but no cigar. If 
they  had gone to the 11 Megapixel Dalsa Chip they might still be here. Now 
they are a  memory unless some other Chinese
 company picks them up, mostly for name, like Hasselblad.
 
Unless MF back and camera makers start thinking in terms of 40-50  Megapixels 
with those big chips, Canon will eat their lunch within a few years  because 
for some things, it's plain and simply "good enough."
 
In my markets, I would lose money with an H25, but it's a great setup if  you 
can afford it, great color, mature workflow, etc., so I'm not slamming it.  
Just telling it like I see it.
 
Claude

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... wrote:

are you reply to me? I can't tell.
If so...

> I am even more surprised by the double standard in your comparison.
 You are 
> comparing old zooms to fixed focal lenghts.

No, I have no Ziess zooms.
Tyler

> From: <claudej1@...>

>  
> I am even more surprised by the double standard in your comparison.  You are
> comparing old zooms to fixed focal lenghts. Even the new zooms woudn't  hold
> up to the Contax Planars. You can't compare zooms to fixed lenses and call  it
> fair.

Old to new - no. And I noted such.  As for primes vs zooms that's an old
debate.  Yes primes have an inherent image/design advantage but this has
been dramatically reduced over time.   In general though I agree I was
making a tough comparison.
>  
> Let's try a $1,600 L series 85mm f/1.2  at f/4 vs. the 120 Planar  at f/8
> which for the format differential would be about the same DOF. All Canon  has
> to 
> do is make a chip that would "use up" that extra resolution and MTF and  put
> the 50mm f/1.4 Canon (non-L) against the 80 Planar. Since the lens  formulas
> are similar in all cases the smaller image circles of the canons would  make
> them at least 25-50% sharper, all other things being equal in optical
> design.....all for 1/2 to 1/4 the price depending on which repsective lenses
> you  
> compare.
>  
> Also, the P25 doesn't use an Anti Aliasing filter, which give it a  sharpness
> advantage and a moire/color aliasing disadvantage.

Yes but their PS moire filter is extremely effective and need only be used
when necessary.

>I shot the original  Phase
> One lightphase against the Foveon in 1999, and the Foveon equaled the  Phase
> One sharpness (after USM), had better color, no moire and no aliasing. I  know
> the P-25 is one of the top dogs out there and in the right application, for
> the right client, it's the better choice.
>  
> My point was about 80% of the performance for 1/3 the system price with a
> whole lot more choices in glass than a few single focal lengths from a defunct
> camera company.
>  
> A few years back, I tested the full frame Contax N Digital camera with the
> superb 85mm f/1.4 Planar which is every bit the lens the the Canon L is. It
> was 
>  too few pixels, and 2 years too late to market. Nice try, but no cigar. If
> they  had gone to the 11 Megapixel Dalsa Chip they might still be here. Now
> they are a  memory unless some other Chinese
>  company picks them up, mostly for name, like Hasselblad.
>  
> Unless MF back and camera makers start thinking in terms of 40-50  Megapixels
> with those big chips, Canon will eat their lunch within a few years  because
> for some things, it's plain and simply "good enough."

I don't disagree with your general point here.  The MF backs have a long way
to go and Canon are certainly trying to nip at their heels.  The question
though is how much room is there on their respective leashes.  I would argue
that at 16-22 mp 35mm is running out of room on resolution (the glass is
already being thoroughly tested) and progress will focus back in on noise.
At 22mp, the MF boys are just getting going.  They are still using the sweet
spot of their existing glass and have an inherent workflow advantage when it
comes to managing noise.  Now is a great time for even the passionate
hobbyist to be taking up 35mm digital (although it's still not cheap).  In
645 digital you would need a very healthy cash flow business to ride the
pace of change we are likely to see in the next three years.  These are
tough times for the pro MF shooter.  Not only is business generally tough
but the instrumentation used is going through a substantial transformation
requiring significant capital expenditure.

Steve Kale wrote:

>
>I don't disagree with your general point here.  The MF backs have a long way
>to go and Canon are certainly trying to nip at their heels.  The question
>though is how much room is there on their respective leashes.  I would argue
>that at 16-22 mp 35mm is running out of room on resolution (the glass is
>already being thoroughly tested) and progress will focus back in on noise.
>At 22mp, the MF boys are just getting going.  They are still using the sweet
>spot of their existing glass and have an inherent workflow advantage when it
>comes to managing noise.  Now is a great time for even the passionate
>hobbyist to be taking up 35mm digital (although it's still not cheap).  In
>645 digital you would need a very healthy cash flow business to ride the
>pace of change we are likely to see in the next three years.  These are
>tough times for the pro MF shooter.  Not only is business generally tough
>but the instrumentation used is going through a substantial transformation
>requiring significant capital expenditure. 
>  
>
A friend/photographer bought a new Sinar back (22 mp) about two years 
ago. He had most of the Sinar stuff and he had already  exchanged some 
of the view lenses for better "digital" ones by Rodenstock + Schneider. 
At the same time he bought a new Hasselblad that was more compatible 
with the Sinar back (but not the H1) and sold the old Hasselblad. Not 
long after that he also bought the Horseman DigiFlex II. Meanwhile he 
had his share of Nikon DSLRs and has the 12 MP now. I don't think he 
will stop investing like he never did before digital appeared but his 
choice of cameras + lenses is quite universal (for studio, art 
photography + bit of reporting) and allows him to use the Sinar back 
with the Sinar view, Zeiss and the Nikon lenses. Before he got the 12 MP 
Nikon some months ago he made the comment that of all his lenses the 
Schneider digital view lenses were the best, I do not know if that's 
still the case. Something that surprised me. I do not think he will 
consider abandoning his Nikon + MF gear and change to Canon despite some 
trouble with Nikon service. Horses for courses + the hybrid sensor/lens 
setups he now has are not compensated by just a bigger sensor in what is 
basically still a 35 mm system. The multiple half a pixel shifts shots 
possible with the MF digital backs have replaced the work done with 4x5. 
Something like that could be done with 35 based DSLRs too to get 645 
output but that didn't happen so far, maybe it is more difficult with 
smaller well sizes (although the Konica-Minolta AS system relies on 
something similar). Competition in MF digital is between Kodak and Dalsa 
(Philips still at the background for Dalsa though), several MF back 
producers, few MF camera manufacturers left and Canon. I think some MF 
manufacturers lean back (if they are part of a bigger group) to see what 
is happening in that market. Some have to get in again at the right 
point: Fuji for example has to get into that market with sensors, 
cameras and lenses again, their part in the Hasselblad, Imacon deal is 
too little and digitising the Fuji 6x8 isn't ideal either considering 
its format and market. Zeiss has to get in for their lens designs and 
lenses with Contax now at the back burner and Hasselblad going Fuji. 
Interesting times.

The vertical market is an interesting one too. The three wafer stepper 
manufacturers ASML (former Philips company), Nikon and Canon are relying 
on resp Zeiss, Nikon and Canon glass in their wafer steppers. Basically 
all the sensors used in digital cameras have seen the best glass 
possible at their birth in the lithographic process :-) The knowledge of 
sensor manufacturing should be available to all the lens manufacturers. 
There's however only one company that makes wafer steppers, the glass 
for wafer steppers, sensors, cameras and the glass for cameras: Canon. 
The rest of the industry has slices of the market vertical or horizontal 
but none as broad as Canon. Nikon could have a place like that in 
digital photography but doesn't so far. Sony talks with KonicaMinolta on 
DSLRs cooperation and not with Nikon. Interesting times.

Ernst

> The vertical market is an interesting one too. The three 
> wafer stepper manufacturers ASML (former Philips company), 
> Nikon and Canon are relying on resp Zeiss, Nikon and Canon 
> glass in their wafer steppers. 

So ASML, Nikon, and Canon are wafer stepper manufacturers. The use Zeiss,
Nikon & Canon glass respectivley.

> There's however only one company that makes wafer steppers, 
> the glass for wafer steppers, sensors, cameras and the glass 
> for cameras: Canon. 

Hang on. You say that only Canon make wafer steppers, & the glass for such
steppers? That is a direct contradiciton to your above statement.

Or do you mean that only Canon make the package (stepper, stepper glass,
sensors, cameras & camera glass). Do Nikon not make sensors then? Because
they make steppers, stepper glass (as per top para), definitely make cameras
& camera glass.

Chris


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi Folks,

This thread seems to have wandered pretty far off topic. Please wrap 
it up or take it off list.

Thank you,
Martin Wesley
Group Owner

Chris Aitken wrote:

>>The vertical market is an interesting one too. The three 
>>wafer stepper manufacturers ASML (former Philips company), 
>>Nikon and Canon are relying on resp Zeiss, Nikon and Canon 
>>glass in their wafer steppers. 
>>    
>>
>
>So ASML, Nikon, and Canon are wafer stepper manufacturers. The use Zeiss,
>Nikon & Canon glass respectivley.
>
>  
>
>>There's however only one company that makes wafer steppers, 
>>the glass for wafer steppers, sensors, cameras and the glass 
>>for cameras: Canon. 
>>    
>>
>
>Hang on. You say that only Canon make wafer steppers, & the glass for such
>steppers? That is a direct contradiciton to your above statement.
>
>Or do you mean that only Canon make the package (stepper, stepper glass,
>sensors, cameras & camera glass). Do Nikon not make sensors then? Because
>they make steppers, stepper glass (as per top para), definitely make cameras
>& camera glass.
>  
>

But no sensors as I wrote. Given the Sony move to KonicaMinolta for DSLR 
development I guess Sony isn't expecting that Nikon will buy its sensors 
for ever there. Understandable after the Nikon flirts with Kodak and 
Fuji. But could there be Nikon sensors in the pipeline too ?

Ernst